I suspect this is a silly fishing expedition by the FBI and I am really happy that Apple is putting their foot down and fighting this one.

First off, I am seeing this as the ideal case to try to force Apple's hand to break the encryption of their own devices. What possible better excuse could you have than home grown terrorist? Secondly, while the FBI keeps saying that this is a one time request, I can almost guarantee that as soon as the software is built to break the encryption, Apple gets a pile of iphones within the week asking them to be decrypted. A prosecutor in NYC already said he had over 100 phones that he can't get into. Second, (correct me if you have heard differently) I have read elsewhere that this wasn't even the shooters primary phone. This was his phone from work. Both he and his wife destroyed their primary cell phones and either destroyed or disposed of their hard drive from their computer. If there was anything of value on his work phone he would have destroyed it too.Lastly, though I didn't agree with his views on quite a few rulings, I really enjoyed this bit of his writing - "There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all" Antonin Scalia

TTrav wrote:Lastly, though I didn't agree with his views on quite a few rulings, I really enjoyed this bit of his writing - "There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all" Antonin Scalia

The alternative is to destroy the rights of all to shed light on the criminality of some.

Silver: the Rodney Dangerfield of precious metals.

Be wary of he who would deny you access to information,for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

mnymgr1 wrote:does anyone here actually believe that the NSA can't already hack just about anything on the planet ? they are doing this publicly to not worry the citizens of their abilities but my guess is they already know exactly what is on this phone. hell, there are probably teens able to crack much of the worlds devices, you'd hope with billions thrown at them that the NSA could do it by now

The should offer to do it for $10 million dollars, then tell them they have run into trouble and they need more programmers and the costs have escaladed another $10 million dollars. rinse repeat a few times. then when it comes out it only works on IPhone 4 which have by that time all become obsolete.

Recluse wrote:So what exactly did the FBI actually accomplish? Did they circumvent the self destruct feature AND then brute force the password?

Nothing. This wasn't about getting into his iphone. It was his work phone. He intentionally destroyed this computer and his and his wifes primary phone. This was a work device with nothing on it. It was a fishing expedition to try to set a legal precedent or to bully Apple into weakening encryption.

Yes, I know this thread is over 18 months old, but here we go again, this time it's about the Texas church shooter:

The San Antonio Express-News has learned that Texas Rangers served Apple warrants for data on both the perpetrator's iPhone SE and a basic LG cellphone. In the case of the iPhone, the state law enforcement unit wants access to both local and iCloud info (such as calls, messages and photos) produced since January 1st, 2016....The Rangers' warrant puts Apple in a difficult position. Although at least some iCloud data is accessible with a warrant, the iPhone itself is another issue. Police missed their opportunity to use the shooter's fingerprint to unlock the phone without a passcode, and the nature of iOS' encryption makes it very difficult for Apple and anyone else to access locked-down data. In the case of the San Bernardino attack, the FBI paid security experts at Cellebrite to get to a shooter's files. Apple may once again be faced with a situation where it can't fully comply with data requests.

Absolutely not. If the FBI gets the software, then all of the other agencies will get it too. Someone will leak/hack the software and then it will be spread worldwide, and then we might as well not even have the encryption on the phones. The bottom line is you just cant trust the government to protect that kind of software, or use it honorably.

The method they can already use to open the phones doesnt require disassembling the phone. They can clone the phone while it is encrypted, and then try all possible password combinations on the clones. If they try too many bad passwords and the phone info self-deletes or locks out the user permanently, they just make a new clone and keep trying until they get the correct password, which they then use to unlock the original phone. This is how the "3rd party" supposedly helped them unlock one of the previous phones. Using this method you could have the phone unlocked in under a day easily, as long as you are willing to throw enough resources at it.

jcz1 wrote:Yes, I know this thread is over 18 months old, but here we go again, this time it's about the Texas church shooter:

The San Antonio Express-News has learned that Texas Rangers served Apple warrants for data on both the perpetrator's iPhone SE and a basic LG cellphone. In the case of the iPhone, the state law enforcement unit wants access to both local and iCloud info (such as calls, messages and photos) produced since January 1st, 2016....The Rangers' warrant puts Apple in a difficult position. Although at least some iCloud data is accessible with a warrant, the iPhone itself is another issue. Police missed their opportunity to use the shooter's fingerprint to unlock the phone without a passcode, and the nature of iOS' encryption makes it very difficult for Apple and anyone else to access locked-down data. In the case of the San Bernardino attack, the FBI paid security experts at Cellebrite to get to a shooter's files. Apple may once again be faced with a situation where it can't fully comply with data requests.

The FBI dropped a lawsuit against Apple after they hacked the San Bernardino phone. Maybe they were afraid they would lose in court. What the FBI really wants is a way to look at all phones without a warrant which is what the Supreme Court said they needed to do.

joefro wrote:Absolutely not. If the FBI gets the software, then all of the other agencies will get it too. Someone will leak/hack the software and then it will be spread worldwide, and then we might as well not even have the encryption on the phones. The bottom line is you just cant trust the government to protect that kind of software, or use it honorably.

Yep. Backdoors and hacking tools developed by the government or for the government will eventually make their way into the wrong hands and be used to extort, exploit, or steal from innocent victims. It's already happening. The Shadow Brokers keep leaking NSA hacking tools. Over a year after the initial TSB leak and the NSA is still tearing itself apart trying to figure out who leaked the tools and/or how they were hacked and stolen. Hundreds of thousands of machines were infected with ransomwear and backdoors within days of the initial leak.

Our government doesn't have a very good track record of keeping dangerous things out of the wrong hands. The government lost track of over $1,000,000,000 worth of equipment in Iraq, including Humvees and RPGs. The government doesn't have a good track record of even keeping relatively inane things out of the wrong hands. The Pentagon can't account for $6,500,000,000,000 in general fund transactions. And look at how much information Snowden was able to walk out the door with. And he arguably did it for the right reasons, not just to sell it to the highest bidder.

FBI Director Christopher A. Wray on Tuesday renewed a call for tech companies to help law enforcement officials gain access to encrypted smartphones, describing it as a “major public safety issue.”

Wray said the bureau was unable to gain access to the content of 7,775 devices in fiscal 2017 — more than half of all the smartphones it tried to crack in that time period — despite having a warrant from a judge.

“Being unable to access nearly 7,800 devices in a single year is a major public safety issue,” he said, taking up a theme that was a signature issue of his predecessor, James B. Comey.

“We’re not interested in the millions of devices of everyday citizens,” he said in New York at Fordham University’s International Conference on Cyber Security. “We’re interested in those devices that have been used to plan or execute terrorist or criminal activities.”

He said: “We need to work together, the government and the private sector, to find a way forward, and find a way forward quickly.”

As someone who has spoken with multiple law enforcement officers, they all agree, while they would like it from an investigative standpoint, they said hell no, because they don’t want their own phones vulnerable.